Reveal addresses internal to wallet in address book

[mdpfeiffer]

Currently it seems that all addresses in the wallet are automatically in the address book, but you cannot see them.

When attempting to move coins from address to address internally within the wallet, however, you cannot access your own addresses from the address book. You'd have to go to another panel (receive addresses or transactions) to copy the internal address then go back to "send coins" and paste it.

[IngCr3at1on]

I believe you're referring to change addresses specifically. Because all other addresses do show in your address book properly.

This is actually by design and personally one that I like because if we flood the address book with change addresses it's going to get impossible to read really quick. Also you shouldn't be sending coins to change addresses yourself generally speaking because like most addresses as far as the general concept is concerned you shouldn't really use the same addresses repeatedly in the first place.

Obviously with staking that's rule doesn't entirely apply because you generally will want all the coins on the same address for staking, which is also why we went ahead and did microprimes the way we did. Having said that I'm still not sure I like the idea of bloating the receive coins tab of the address book with change addresses; assuming that is what you mean.

[ligerzero459]

He's talking about normal addresses you've generated. I've actually noticed this same behavior before. It's always irked me, but I never considered doing anything about it. I could look into it and see what it'd take

[IngCr3at1on]

Oh... K I get it... It's still by design believe it or not.

If you look at the code the "Receive Coins" tab and the "Address Book" are actually part of the same Address Book but only sending addresses are stored in the "Address Book" tab which in the code rightfully so is referred to as the sending coins tab ;)

Not to say it couldn't be corrected but it's a fairly major refactor.

[IngCr3at1on]

So the real question here isn't if this is possible but more if it really should be done or not. Personally I have no issues with the current implementation but others use the coin more than I do so I'm curious to have some other opinions.

[MitchellCash]

I think I'm in the same boat as @IngCr3at1on in so much that others use the coin more than I but if we are looking to have a vote I am siding with @IngCr3at1on on this one.

Current implementation is fine for the reason that if you use "Paycoin" (as in Bitcoin) the way it was intended than you are actually encouraged to create hundreds of addresses one for each service another for each one off payment etc. which makes this idea not feasible.

Even looking outside the theoretical idea of how Paycoin/Bitcoin should be used some users may just have a lot of addresses because that's just the way they use their wallet and nobody wants to see a cluttered address book they can't opt out of.

I think the current implementation is the safest with the least harm.

Also @IngCr3at1on you need to learn the GUI more :P